Frontiers of Architectural Research 11 (2022) 53e72

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

ScienceDirect

journal homepage: www.keaipublishing.com/foar

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Contradiction and consistency:

Deconstruction of landscape bridges based
on multiple temporal-spatial scales
Haifei Zhou a,b, Edoardo Currà b, Jiawei Leng a,*, Yu Xu c,
Wenkang Hu a

a
Department of Architecture, Southeast University, Nanjing, China
b
Department of Civil, Building and Environmental Engineering, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome,
Italy
c
Department of Architecture, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy

Received 10 June 2021; received in revised form 2 August 2021; accepted 23 August 2021

KEYWORDS Abstract This study explores the essential issues pertaining to a landscape bridge based on a
Landscape bridges; multi-scale methodology, in view of the paucity of design theories for contemporary landscape
Bridge design theory; bridges. We contribute to reinterpret landscape bridges on their physical temporal-spatial
Deconstruction; scales, instead of from perspectives of individual disciplines or their mechanical cooperation.
Temporal-spatial Envisaged in a new systematized framework, we elaborate the dominant and their opposite
scales; counterparts of landscape bridges from a binary deconstruction point of view, i.e., (1) Devel-
Multi-scale opment and retrogression on the temporal scale, (2) connection and separation on the spatial
integration topographic scale, (3) skyphilia and topophilia on the spatial landscape scale, and (4) extrover-
sion and introversion on the spatial architectural scale. The deconstructed multifaceted scales
are instrumental in understanding landscape bridges from various perspectives, with a pyramid
model proposed afterward to mediate the discovered oppositions and stimulate the cross-scale
interactions. Various possible design paths could be derived from this well-organized and open-
minded multiple system, which is initially expected in this study to inspire bridge designers
with dissimilar backgrounds and calls for a wider ramification.
ª 2021 Higher Education Press Limited Company. Publishing services by Elsevier B.V. on behalf
of KeAi Communications Co. Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: 230179010@seu.edu.cn (H. Zhou), jw_leng@seu.edu.cn (J. Leng).
Peer review under responsibility of Southeast University.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foar.2021.08.002
2095-2635/ª 2021 Higher Education Press Limited Company. Publishing services by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of KeAi Communications Co. Ltd.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
 H. Zhou, E. Currà, J. Leng et al.
1. Introduction
Architectural problems related to modern bridges have long
been a gray field since the first iron bridge symbolizing the
industrial revolution built in 1779. The gap between engi-
neering and architecture always requires a continued
remediation for their inconsistent development speeds and
contents. Currently, in the field of bridge design, we are
moving from a culture of one-dimensional evaluation to one
that comprehensively evaluates bridges, including all the
structural, architectural, and landscape aspects. We are
confronted with a new situation that is different from any
development period of bridges.
A seminal architectural study on bridges could date back
to the third book of Andrea Palladio’s Architecture, in
which he addressed both architectural and technical as-
pects of wooden truss bridges and stone arch bridges
(Palladio, 2002). It is a time that a craftsman could be quite
capable of a dual role of contemporary architects and en-
gineers. The separation of roles started from the founda-
tion of the French National School of Bridges and Roads in
1747, and was thoroughly stimulated by the outbreak of the
industrial revolution calling for specialized technologies.
After that, pioneering bridge designers have paved the way
for modern bridges with new materials and forms, the
leading engineers among them include Thomas Telford
(1757e1834), Robert Stephenson (1803e1859), Isambard
Kingdom Brunel (1806e1859), John A. Roebling
(1806e1869), Gustave Eiffel (1832e1923), Gustav Linden-
thal (1850e1935), Robert Maillart (1872e1940), Othmar
Amman (1879e1966), Eugène Freyssinet (1879e1962),
David B. Steinman (1886e1960) and Christian Menn
(1927e2018) (Billington, 1985). By operating on mega-
structures that focus on function and efficiency, they
opened up the possibility for bridge engineering to be
structural art, which is prior and now to a certain extent
parallel to modernist architecture. Some early bridge en-
gineers have a direct influence on the formation of
Modernism, such as Gustave Eiffel and Robert Maillart.
Along with its astounding structural development for
longer span and higher efficiency, the aesthetic aspect of
bridges was also sensitively evaluated by some prestigious
bridge engineers and scholars. Mock and Kassler (1950)
were probably the first to address the aesthetic philoso-
phy of modern bridges in the perspective of modernism,
such as form following function, exposure of structure, and
elimination of detail. The German engineer Leonhardt
(1968, 1984) devoted all his life to the aesthetic design of
bridge structures by developing tentative design rules for
good bridge forms, such as good order and proportion,
simplicity and pureness, serviceability and suitability, easy
fabrication or construction, and creativity and intuition. He
constructed an aesthetics-involved design procedure for
the structural concept design of modern bridges, which was
widely accepted by bridge engineers worldwide in the 20th
century. In relation to the new forms and styles of modern
bridges (Billington, 1985; Billington and Gottemoeller,
2000) was an indispensable scholar to clarify the struc-
tural history of modern bridges, specifically from the late
18th century to the 1980s. In retrospect, he provided an
evolutionary description of the main modern bridge types:
54
the steel arch bridge, the suspension bridge, the pre-
stressed concrete bridge, and the cable-stayed bridge in
order. Billington was a protagonist of structural art, which
in his opinion, was an art form parallel to but independent
of architecture. In his clear distinction of engineers, ar-
chitects and sculptors, these roles predominately act in
different spheres, and the structural art basically originates
from the shape and size of a bridge, which dominate its
appearance, but not the details, color, or surfaces. Gotte-
moeller, another important engineer and scholar, proposed
the concept of “bridgescape” (Gottemoeller, 1998), and
placed great emphasis on the environmental impact of
bridge aesthetics by breaking down the bridge design into
its most fundamental elements-line, form, placement in
the site, color, texture, and ornamentation. Furthermore,
in the end of the last century, two mature compositions
epitomizing engineers’ wisdom of bridge aesthetics were
published to provide design guidelines for different bridge
types, components, and facilities, each of which could
contribute to bridge aesthetics when sensitively considered
(National Research Council US. Transportation Research
Board, 1991; Office of Bridges and Structures, 1995).
Discussed thoroughly by engineers, the structural aes-
thetics innovation quickly became a dead-lock for its
exclusive focus on the integral design in a higher level, and
the pervasive analysis software further weakened the
original structural design in a way of emphasizing calcula-
tion. Regardless of its dimension and site, a bridge designed
by an engineer was probably an intensification of what
already existed on the basis of bridge typology. The isolated
creative cases could only happen with very few gifted en-
gineers such as Jürg Conzett, who was adept at organizing
the structure and space of pedestrian bridges located in the
mountains (Conzett and Mostafavi, 2006). This situation
changed from the return of architects in the field of bridge
design at the end of the 20th century. The Alamillo Bridge
and Zubizuri Bridge (Jodidio, 2019) by Calatrava reinter-
preted the fascination of structural balance by visually
breaking the symmetry and architecturally organizing the
order of components in a tectonic way. The Sheikh Zayed
Bridge (Bellini et al., 2008), Zaragoza Bridge Pavilion
(Monclús, 2009), and Danjiang Bridge (Spallone, 2017) by
Zaha Hadid were excellent applications of the pervasive
parametric design characterized by shape with smooth
curvature variation. Architectural penetrations were also
applied in other influential bridge designs lead by architects
to improve their shape and space, such as the Millennium
Bridge (Dallard, 2001) and Millau Viaduct (Shannon and
Smets, 2010) by Foster and Partners, the Miho Museum
Bridge by Leoh Ming Pei (Watanabe, 2002), the BP Pedes-
trian Bridge by Frank Gehry (Iyengar, 2006), the Simone de
Beauvoir Footbridge (Architects and Feichtinger, 2008) and
Butterfly Bridge (Morgen, 2017) by Dietmar Feichtinger Ar-
chitects, the Kurilpa Bridge (Beck and Cooper, 2012) and
Helix Bridge (Ting et al., 2014) by Cox Architecture, and the
Merchant Square Footbridge (Knight, 2014) and St. Philips
Footbridge (Beade-Pereda, 2019) by Knight Architects.
Another wave motivating the bridge concept design is to
regard the bridge as a landscape architecture from a
broader landscape view. In a higher system level, landscape
has been found more relevant with sites in which a strictly
 Frontiers of Architectural Research 11 (2022) 53e72
architectural order of the city has been rendered obsolete
or inadequate through social, technological, or environ-
mental change (Waldheim, 2016). Landscape provides new
possibilities based on focusing on site-dependent charac-
ters and systematic requirements, rather than a strictly
architectonic or structural mode for place making through
decentration. Typical cases adopting a landscape strategy
include the Arganzuela Helix Footbridge by Dominique
Perrault Architecture (Castañón, 2014), the Dafne Schip-
pers Bicycle Bridge by NEXT Architects (Becker et al.,
2018), and a series of footbridges designed by Turenscape
in recent years (Hermaputi, 2017; Özçakı, 2017; Yu et al.,
2018), all of which have a visual, functional, ecological,
and experiential interaction with their surroundings.
Due to the multifaceted aspects of bridges, we herein
define a landscape bridge from two aspects. Namely, in a
positive way, a landscape bridge calls for special aesthetic
strategies to motivate the landscape it dwells in, and itself
is an active landscape element in the environment. In a
passive way, a landscape bridge refers to the one that re-
quires careful aesthetic considerations; otherwise, its
construction may have an adverse influence on the original
landscape. However, in achieving the goals of a landscape
bridge, there are quite a lot of controversies from bridge
designers with various backgrounds. This interdisciplinary
field requires an immediate injection of renewing theories
under the actual intricate situation, which could be re-
flected in the following aspects:
(1) Criteria Coordination. The design philosophy adopted
by different designers emphasizes different aspects of the
bridge design. In many cases, the economy and construction
of a landscape bridge should make a sacrifice to realize an
environmentally effective goal, which often arouses dissat-
isfaction from the conservative and experienced engineers,
and further destroys both the enthusiasm of architects and
the possibility of a creative landmark. On the other hand, ir-
rational proposals emphasizing radical novelty could also lead
to inefficiency of the infrastructure, which is ill-matched with
the investment. A design criteria coordination of various goals
is required for all designers regardless of their roles.
(2) Scale Differentiation. Most bridges designed by ar-
chitects are with small or medium spans. Although archi-
tects have demonstrated their capacity at this length scale,
few of them could take the role of leading in large-scale
bridge design except for the work of reshaping. Similarly,
only few creative engineers could present a systematic
approach beyond the classic structural art, while operating
on small or medium bridges. A comprehensive capacity
unrestricted by scales could probably be achieved by a
multi-scale thinking, which will help both engineers and
architects to overcome their weaknesses.
(3) Cooperation Mechanism. Although a general
consensus for cooperation has been achieved among engi-
neers and architects to reach the ideal of landscape
bridges, one of them will inevitably occupy the dominant
role in the design process. If not properly coordinated, the
outcome would probably turn out to be a mechanical
mixture, a landscape addition to a rigid structure, or a
structural compromise to the irrational conception. A gap
in the execution of cooperation is far more overlooked
when we traditionally place great emphasis on the rela-
tionship between the roles of engineers and architects.
55
(4) Common Theory. As the preliminary investigation
above, most concept design theories of bridges were
concluded by engineers or scholars with an engineering
background. Nevertheless, thoughtful engineers are rela-
tively infrequent from the new century when most of them
are involved in computer-aided structural analysis. In
addition, few architects have given fruitful perspectives for
the bridge design comparing to their insight into architec-
ture and landscape, which could be attributed to their
limited energy and practice. Currently, the design theory
for landscape bridges needs a prompt refinement to offer a
common base for the various roles of contemporary bridge
designers, not just case studies.
Encountered with the mentioned problems originating
from separate disciplines and their cooperating procedure,
the design of landscape bridges requires a new and sys-
tematic inspection instead of the traditional emphasis on
structural components, aesthetic styles, and vague coop-
eration of various disciplines. Envisaged in this perspective,
this study will demonstrate the multifaceted aspects of
landscape bridges from time to space and from large to
small spatial scales on a systematic level. The incorporation
of multiple scales into landscape and particularly its
multidisciplinary roots are considered as fundamental ad-
vances in supporting the sustainable development of social-
ecological systems (Khoroshev, 2020). To achieve this
higher systematic goal, a new framework including multiple
scales for landscape bridge design, will first be established.
Thereafter, a deconstruction work is conducted specifically
on the basis of the deconstruction theory to find the binary
oppositions of different temporal-spatial scales, with their
dominant aspects and the opposite demonstrated in an
unprecedented way. The four multifaceted scales are
further elaborated to offer the factual basis and theoretical
support for landscape bridge design. Meanwhile, consis-
tency strategies are investigated to mediate the binary
oppositions of the illustrated scales, which may open minds
for various bridge designers and promote their cooperation.
2. Multi-scale systematic theory and
methodology
A multiple paradigm is used to address the complexity and
multidisciplinary nature of environmental problems, the
spatial and cultural de-localisation of co-operating research
groups, and the recognition of cross-scale effects with
different phenomena operating at different scales (Villa,
2001). The multi-scale system proposed for landscape
bridge design is to establish a new effective framework
based on the evolution of its design metrics, to reconcile
the various disciplines and design roles, and to inspire
creative landscape bridge designs by using a systematic
theory and methodology. The multi-scale system could be
achieved by obeying the following route:
(1) System construction. The new multi-scale system is
expected to formalize and illustrate the complexity of a
bridge in its natural environment, it will differ from the
design metric based on structural typology to pursue a
single aim of structural art, or the design mode motivated
by the collaborative disciplines contributing to an organic
combination. Three spatial scales in conjunction with its
 H. Zhou, E. Currà, J. Leng et al.
evolutionary history are constitutive of this new systematic
framework (Fig. 1), i.e. the spatial topographic scale, the
spatial landscape scale, the spatial architectural scale, and
the temporal scale. Although constructed on the basis of
the contributions of relevant disciplines, the new frame-
work will not emphasize their difference and relationship
as the literal meaning of the proposed scales, which is more
about the spatial and temporal hierarchy. All disciplinary
issues could be included in this multi-scale system, and its
primary goal is to sort out a well-organized and compre-
hensive framework that covers the most central aspects
with respect to a landscape bridge design.
(2) Scale deconstruction. The constitutive scales will be
deconstructed within the structuralized system. According
to the deconstruction theory, the traditional binary oppo-
sitions are never equivalent, and they are always hierar-
chically ranked, which means that one pole is privileged at
the expense of the second (Guillemette, 2006). To reveal
the invisible pole behind the privileged one, the first step is
to thoroughly point out the dominant thinking way we
generally perform on every scale. In reverse, their opposite
aspects that have not been realized in the past could be
discovered, which potentially affect the landscape bridge
design. The dualism-based deconstruction work will be
shown in Section 3.
(3) Scale representation. Characteristics of the
deconstructed oppositions will be meticulously investi-
gated on the basis of theoretical and practical evidence,
in order to distinguish the differences between the binary
oppositions. Subsequently, new possibilities of reversing
and neutralizing the dominant and its opposite will be
studied to provide a new understanding of the landscape
bridge design on multiple scales. Both the qualitative and
quantitative methods are adopted by literature survey
and data acquisition to offer sufficient and convincing
evidence for the scale representation of landscape
bridges, which could be seen in Section 4.
(4) System integration. The ultimate goal of decon-
struction is to mediate the ambivalent oppositions within
the observed scope. Neither part of the binary opposition
can exist without the other because they are actually
interwoven, which is also the same for different scales.
The new multi-scale systematic theory and methodology
could only be applicable when the consistency of oppo-
sitions and the coordination of different scales are ach-
ieved. An integrative strategy will be generated based on
the interaction of oppositions and scales in Section 5 to
see what possibilities the proposed system may open up.
3. Scale deconstruction of landscape bridges
Deconstruction, proposed by the French philosopher Jacques
Derrida to address the relationship between text and meaning
of linguistics, has inspired a range of theoretical revolutions in
various fields such as architecture. The main idea of decon-
struction could be easily understood from the following as-
pects. First, deconstruction is of considerable philosophical
importance to provide an alternative to the “metaphysics of
presence” rooted in classic western philosophy (Sweetman,
1997). This notion means that deconstruction draws on
something that may have been overlooked, ignored, and even
56
suppressed outside the ontology, thus offering a new view to
understand the meaning of everything. Second, deconstruc-
tion is a development of structuralism, which, to a great
extent, resorts to the binary oppositions constituting a
structure, such as pairings of signifier/signified and syn-
chronic/diachronic (Derrida, 2016). Generally, one of the two
opposites assumes a role of dominance over the other, such as
good over bad, speech over the written word, and male over
female. Third, deconstruction, as the representative of what
is called post-structuralism, advocates the dismantling of
logocentrism or the violent hierarchy of structuralism. Ac-
cording to Derrida, the classical philosophical oppositions do
not deal with the peaceful coexistence of a vis-à-vis, which
means the dominant in a pair always governs its subservient
counterpart. The core ideology of deconstruction is to find,
overturn, and establish these oppositions by marking their
difference and eternal interplay, and it is necessary for an
interminable analysis: the hierarchy of dual oppositions al-
ways reestablishes itself (Derrida, 1972).
The deconstruction strategy of landscape bridges could
then be formulated on the basis of the understanding of
Derrida’s theory: to structuralize the observed scales with
binary oppositions, discover and differentiate the dominant
and subordinate sides of these oppositions, and stimulate
their interplay by reorganizing their positions. In practice,
the primary task of deconstruction of landscape bridges is
to construct the binary oppositions by exploring their
dominant and undervalued aspects on the observed scales
(temporal scale, spatial topographical scale, spatial land-
scape scale, and spatial architectural scale).
Generally speaking, on a temporal scale, the bridge is
the outcome of technological development. On a spatial
topographical scale, it connects what is separate in
topography. On a spatial landscape scale, it serves as a
picturesque element in its landscape background. More-
over, the bridge itself deserves an elegant appearance on a
spatial architectural scale.
These statements are in obvious conformity with what
we are envisioning when we talk about landscape bridges.
Thus, a dualistic structure of every observed scale could be
constructed accordingly by inverting the seemly irrebut-
table descriptions:
(1) On the temporal scale: whereas the development of
structural technology has made a significant contribution to
modern bridge engineering and become an indispensable
part of it, the other aspects of bridges concerning their
culture, regionalism, and recreation etc., may inevitably
retrogress in this technology-led process.
(2) On the spatial topographic scale: A bridge could not
only connect the separate topography as it is supposed to
be, but also separate what should otherwise be connected
when not scrutinized.
(3) On the spatial landscape scale: Apart from
contributing to a picturesque landscape view as a
geographic landmark, a bridge could also be organically
woven into the landscape and distract our attention from
eye to body, from above-ground to on-ground, and from
transcendence to attachment. Interpreted as skyphilia and
topophilia, these two different forms will work as binary
oppositions within the landscape scale to be discussed.
(4) On the spatial architectural scale: A landscape
bridge is supposed to own a stunning appearance from both
 Frontiers of Architectural Research 11 (2022) 53e72
a global and local space view. In most cases, a landscape
bridge is an extroverted consideration that dominates the
architectural expression. An introverted strategy with
respect to the on-bridge issues is seldom implemented in
priority when conceiving the architectural form of a bridge.
Even though it is being stereotyped in architectural the-
ories, the extroversion-introversion dichotomy is a barely
explored jungle for the architectural space of bridges.
A clearly deconstructed structure on the multiple scales
of landscape bridges is shown in Fig. 2, with the dominant
and the generally neglected opposite sites discovered.
4. Scale representation of landscape bridges
4.1. Temporal scale d development and
retrogression
The formidable development of modern bridges may date
back to the end of the 18th century, having made its
ongoing progress over 200 years. Despite the early
modernist architects who drew inspiration from bridge en-
gineering, few contemporary architects and even engineers
can adequately know the history of bridge technology. An
effective way to make both of them informed of the most
fundamental evolution is to survey the span development
history of the typical modern bridge types for a holistic
understanding, and the situation of their current develop-
ment phase could be speculated in conjunction with an
overall periodization analysis.
Based on Billington’s extraordinary investigation of
modern bridge history ranging from the 1870s to the early
1980s (Billington, 1985), and the data acquired from Wiki-
pedia, the span capacity evolution of four typical modern
bridge types could be presented, which is concurrently
shown in Fig. 3. The three pragmatic structural types are
used to roughly categorize the modern bridges on the basis
of their mechanical traits, namely, the beam/cantilever
bridge (bending moment dominant), the arch bridge (arch
pressure dominant), and the cable bridge (cable tension
dominant), including the common truss form because it
could be applied in all of the three types. In particular,
unequal spanning capacities have been discovered with the
suspension bridge and the cable-stayed bridge, both clas-
sified as cable bridges. Thus, the four observed modern
Fig. 1 Frameworks used for landscape bridge design.
57
bridge types herein are the cantilever bridge, the arch
bridge, the suspension bridge, and the cable-stayed bridge.
In Fig. 3, the span capacities of observed bridge types
have followed an incremental development since the
1800s, except the cantilever bridge which has been capable
of spanning a length over 500 m in the end of 19th century,
namely, the extraordinary Forth Bridge with two main spans
of 521 m completed in 1890, remaining the second longest
cantilever bridge nowadays. The technology of the canti-
lever bridge has been mature and stable since the 1900s.
Instead of pursuing longer spans, the development of
cantilever bridge is more about structural and material
improvement, and currently, it is sufficient to support any
spanning schedule under 500 m. Although lagging behind
the cantilever bridge, the developments of the other three
bridge types have a relatively trackable timeline, and their
drastic and stationary development periods could be clearly
discerned by investigating their longest main span records.
Specifically, the arch bridge reached its first main span
record over 500 m in the 1930s and stepped into a period of
steady development since then. Now, the longest arch span
recorded is the Chaotianmen Bridge, with the main span of
552 m built in 2009. With regard to the suspension bridge,
two obvious leaps took place in the 1930s and 1990s, of
which the representative works are the Golden Gate Bridge
(main span of 1280 m and completed in 1937) and the
Akashi-Kaikyo Bridge (main span of 1991 m and completed
in 1998) respectively. The latter holds a record of the
longest bridge up to date, which also indicates a relatively
steady development phase of the suspension bridge. As
regards the cable-stayed bridge that started to unleash its
spanning potential from the next half of the 20th century, a
rapid technology promotion since the 1990s, achieved a
competitive length of the main span over 1000 m in the
Sutong Yangtze River Bridge (main span of 1088 m and
completed in 2008) and the Russky Bridge (main span
1104 m and completed in 2012). And it probably has
reached the capacity limit in the short run.
To further comprehend the historical progress of
bridges, a periodization analysis is conducted to elaborate
its regularity and trait (Table 1). Two types of periods are
defined, namely, the period during which structural tech-
nology of bridges is always given a more privileged position
than its artistry aspects, and the period during which
technology and art could equilibrate in a way that neither
 H. Zhou, E. Currà, J. Leng et al.

Fig. 2 Deconstruction of a landscape bridge.

Fig. 3 Span development of the main modern bridge types.

of them is overwhelming. Generally, the first one refers to
the period a technology boom was accelerated by the
emergence of new materials, innovative forms, and con-
struction improvements. In this period, the most funda-
mental structural issues require an immediate solution, and
few opportunities for aesthetic creation could be offered,
except what is formed as structural art in this process.
Subsequently, the second defined equilibrium period often
appears after the slowdown of an enormous technological
development, and it does not mean that the structural
development has stagnated in this period. In a relative
sense, it is proceeding in a gradual and cumulative way,
leaving sufficient space and time for other fields to digest
the technological achievements and make non-structure-
driven innovations on the founded technological strength.
In Table 1, to circumscribe the two defined periods,
some representative bridges within the two periods and the
epoch-making bridges that may serve as links between
them are carefully selected. The materials and the four
bridge types mentioned above are used to evaluate the
characteristics of the proposed periodization. The divided
phases could be understood by the following elaboration:
I/a (before around the 1st century BC)
This period mainly refers to the time before the ancient
Roman aqueducts, which symbolized the achievement of
stone arch bridges, became technically mature. It is a time
when bridges were mainly made of wood and stone with
primitive forms of beams and arches to find the techno-
logical solution for simple spanning.
I/b (around the 1st century BCe1770S)
The maturity of the ancient Roman aqueducts opened up a
period in which the stone arch bridges prevailed in the next
more than 1000 years. As a herein defined milestone, the key
technologies of the ancient Roman aqueducts have been
introduced by the Roman architect Vitruvius in his work De
architectura in the 1st century BC. Thereafter, cities and
towns throughout the Roman Empire emulated and refined
this model, which could indicate the beginning of an equi-
librium era considering both technology and artistry. The best
evidence afterward is the graceful stone arch bridges built in
the renaissance. Meanwhile, a similar period could be found
with wooden bridges in Asian countries, typically the woven
timber arch bridges (Zhou et al., 2018).

58
 Frontiers of Architectural Research 11 (2022) 53e72
Table 1 Periodization of bridge development.
II/a (1770Se1930S)
This era is a period catalyzed by the Industrial Revolution
taking the iron bridge as a symbol (Cossons, 2002). It
directly led a way to modern bridges characterized by iron,
steel, and concrete material, benefiting from the striking
technological development of materials, fabrication, and
construction. New forms in conjunction with new materials
were contrived to span the never conquered distance and
topography, namely, (1) the iron or steel suspension bridge,
including the noticeable Menai Bridge (Paxton, 1977), the
Brooklyn Bridge (McCullough, 2012), and the George
Washington Bridge (Rockland, 2020); (2) the steel canti-
lever bridge, most prominent of which is the Forth Bridge
59
(Baker, 1884); (3) the iron and steel arch bridge, the typical
examples should cover the Garabit viaduct (Simondon,
2012), the Eads Bridge (Kouwenhoven, 1982), and the
Bayonne Bridge (Thrall and Billington, 2008); (4) the con-
crete arch bridge, mainly facilitated by Robert Maillart,
including his masterworks, such as the Tavanasa Bridge and
the Schwandbach Bridge (Billington, 1989). The peak of this
prosperous development period could be marked by the
Golden Gate Bridge (MacDonald and Nadel, 2013) and the
Salginatobel Bridge (Billington, 1989), representing the
outstanding achievements of the new materials, namely,
the steel in the form of the suspension bridge and the
concrete in form of the arch bridge, respectively.
 H. Zhou, E. Currà, J. Leng et al.
II/b (1930Se1980S)
Following a stunning development phase lasting for
approximately 150 years, bridge technology constrained by
new engineering problems began to slow down its pace. The
specific technological issues with concern in this period
mainly include: (1) the wind-resistance problems of the
long-span suspension bridge, originally aroused by the
collapse of the Tacoma Narrows Bridge in 1940 (Olson et al.,
2015), (2) the requirements for steel with higher perfor-
mance, (3) the prestress technology to improve the con-
crete bridge, and (4) the development of the new modern
bridge type, namely, the cable-stayed bridge. As shown in
Fig. 3, no noticeable span improvements have been made
during this relatively pragmatic period preparing technol-
ogy storage for the next breakthrough and focusing on the
improvement of bridges with medium and small spans. The
representative bridges worth mentioning are the Luzancy
Bridge, a prestressed concrete bridge designed by Eugène
Freyssinet (Shushkewich, 2013); the Fehmarn Sound Bridge,
a network arch bridge opening up the aesthetic possibilities
for steel arch bridges (Tveit, 2008); the Reichenau Bridge
by Christian Menn, considered as a successor of Maillart’s
concrete bridges (Pipinato, 2015); the Verrazzano-Narrows
Bridge, a more modern suspension bridge slightly breaking
the length record of the Golden Gate Bridge in 1964
(Brumer, 1966); and the Severin Bridge, a symbol of the
early cable-stayed bridges in development (Walther, 1996).
III/a (1980Se2000S)
The new period characterized by another technology
breakthrough may have started from the notable Ganter
bridge by Christian Menn, which not only held aesthetic
quality in the highest regard but also represented a com-
bination of prestress technology and the prevailing cable-
stayed bridge form (Rossiter, 2008). Although being fairly
short in history, this subdivided period deserves particular
attention of current research. Besides shaping up all the
major modern bridge forms, two significant leaps have been
made to explore the spanning capacity limit of the sus-
pension bridge and the cable-stayed bridge respectively.
For the former, it is approximately 2000 m, which could be
demonstrated by the Humber Bridge (Fisher, 1982) and the
Akashi-Kaikyo Bridge (Matsumoto and Yasuda, 1990),
breaking the length record of the Verrazzano-Narrows
Bridge in succession. For the latter, it is approximately
1000 m, which could be observed from the Tatara Bridge
completed in 1999 (Ito and Endo, 1994). In addition, the
bridge typology founded by engineers encountered an im-
mediate challenge when architects represented by Cala-
trava stepped into this field, applying asymmetric
structural forms in bridges, such as the Alamillo Bridge and
the Zubizuri Bridge (Jodidio, 2018). Together with the other
architectural and landscape involvement, the structural
innovation of bridges, especially with medium and small
spans, was tremendously stimulated in reverse, thus
opening up the time what we called landscape bridges. We
began to consider bridges in a trans-disciplinary view
instead of the excessive pursuit for structural achieve-
ments, and this was totally on the basis of the development
and awareness of all associated disciplines.
60
III/b (2000SeNow)
The Akashi-Kaikyo Bridge with a main span of 1991 m
completed in 1998 could be marked as the highest
achievement of bridge technology to date, having kept its
span length record for over 20 years. Although bridge
engineers are still making efforts to challenge the span
limit of various bridge types in the new century, e.g., the
Russky Bridge (Pipinato, 2016), the longest cable-stayed
bridge with a span of 1104 m completed in 2012, and
the Chaotianmen Yangtze River Bridge, the longest arch
bridge with a span of 552 m completed in 2009 (Xiang
et al., 2010), all the modern bridge types are following
a gradual development route, and a drastic breakthrough
is unlikely to take place in the near future. Moreover, the
focus on bridges has been drawn from the challenge of
structural limit to a more diverse and interacted cooper-
ation, gathering all relevant disciplines to contribute to
the period definitely for the emergence of more
outstanding landscape bridges. Typical examples in this
period include the New San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge
(Frick, 2015) and the Danjiang Bridge (Spallone, 2017)
with medium spans, and quite a few bridges with small
spans mentioned in the introduction part. The bridges
have contributed to a new trend of landscape bridges
addressing all the structural, architectural, and landscape
considerations, regardless of the role of the bridge
designers.
Living in an era that we are readily delivered over to
technology, whether we passionately affirm or deny it,
many of us could be utterly blind to the essence of tech-
nology if not holistically informed. We are more likely to
touch the essence of bridge technology by taking stock of
the development trajectory of bridges. Instead of doing
mere homage, the manifold interlocking sides of technol-
ogy leading to both development and retrogression could be
discovered. Therefore, the following ponderings are
instrumental in deconstructing landscape bridges on their
temporal scale:
(1) How does bridge development benefit from the
essence of modern technology?
(2) In the light of modern technology, what may fade
pertaining to the essence of a bridge?
(3) How to reconcile the relationship between the pre-
vailing and the oblivious? Especially how to reshape
the role of technology in designing a landscape
bridge?
The way how modern technology held sway in the pro-
cess of bridge development could be discovered through
the investigation of Heidegger’s question concerning tech-
nology, in which the essence of technology was thoroughly
addressed. Instead of focusing on the instrumentality of
technology, generally regarded as something neutral, Hei-
degger defined technology as a way of revealing, bringing
concealment into unconcealment. By unlocking, trans-
forming, storing, distributing, and switching about, every-
thing concealed is ordered to stand by as what he called the
“standing-reserve”. The essence of modern technology is
described as what he called “enframing”, which demands
 Frontiers of Architectural Research 11 (2022) 53e72

ordering of the standing-reserve in the process of revealing

(Heidegger, 1954). Envisaged in Heidegger’s understanding
of technology, the development of modern bridges is
exactly the process of revealing, to reveal what should be
the most suitable bridge type in accordance with various
distances and topographies within the physical and social
restraints. The invented bridge types in conjunction with
the materials, apparatuses, and instruments are then set
upon as the standing-reserves at hand, being brought into
an orderable framework for use. Conclusively, the devel-
opment of bridges is driven by the power of revealing to-
ward presencing of the essence of technology carried out
by man.
“The essence of enframing is that setting-upon gathered
into itself which entraps the truth of its own coming to Fig. 4 Rainbow bridge in the Chinese painting d “Along the
presence with oblivion. This entrapping disguises itself, in River during the Qingming Festival”. Source: Shanghai Daily,
that it develops into the setting in order of everything that May 24, 2015, Sunday.
presences as standing-reserve, establishes itself in the
standing-reserve, and rules as the standing-reserve”
(Heidegger, 1954). As a revealing of the essence of tech- more inclusive framework, giving special heed to what has
nology, enframing entraps the truth of its own coming to been neglected. Adverse to the danger hidden in enfram-
presence with oblivion, slipping into a dangerous situation ing, this motivation is also what Heidegger described as the
that every other way of revealing will be driven out. In this “saving power”, which for landscape bridges can only
oblivion that blocks the self-manifestation of being, derive from thoughtful architects and engineers, but not
enframing may be bereft of its power, while man may also those putting great emphasis on the arbitrary enframing.
be divested of his consciousness, being as one kind of This saving power is not to overturn the hierarchy of the
standing-reserve who manufactures himself in enframing. previous framework, it is a much attentive negotiation with
Being aware of this exclusive and privileged character of it. In conceiving his several bridges located on the Veia
enframing, the oblivion of the other possibilities standing Traversina, the Swiss engineer Jürg Conzett adopted the
by the essential skeleton of enframing (i.e., the modern philosophy of “weak thought” proposed by the Italian
bridge typology enframed by modern technology) could also philosopher Gianni Vattimo when meditating on the posi-
be discovered once the dominant enframing confronts tion of structural technology (Conzett, 2006). In his 1st
danger. Traversina bridge (Fig. 5), Jürg Conzett devised an intricate
To disclose the nontechnical aspects of bridges, which string structure underneath. Although the substructure is
are inevitably driven out of the technology-based frame- structurally excellent and visually eye-catching, its
work characterized by structural typology, bridges built sincerity is also obvious in supporting the upper path
before the industrial revolution deserve a retrospect. In compatible with the mountain environment. Back to the
discovering the manifold nontechnical ranges, including example of the Rainbow Bridge, a similar strategy could
topographical, social, political, cultural, religious, and also be perceived, within which technology has no strong
military etc., the most central part particularly suppressed desire to gain the upper hand to show itself. Instead, it puts
by modern technology could be their intimate relationship itself into a position overlooking the diversified demands of
with dwelling, or our living space. The modern mega- a bridge with self-consciousness. Technology should always
structures take a more challenging role in overcoming the cooperate, contribute, and even make a sacrifice when
geographical barriers and supporting the modern vehicles juxtaposed with other aspects, which may be closer to the
with efficiency and safety, and this concept is more like essence of a bridge in many cases.
what Heidegger called “challenging-forth”, while the early
bridges were more like the “bringing-forth” from the orig-
inal dwelling space to serve as a link, a supplement, or an
extension within it. Sufficient evidence could be found in
both western and eastern history. For example, the Chinese
Earlier Song dynasty painting “Along the River during the
Qingming Festival” (Fig. 4) represents a prosperous life
scene around the Rainbow Bridge across Bian Canal, despite
its intricate and excellent substructure known as the woven
timber arch (Zhou et al., 2018). The Rainbow Bridge has
demonstrated how a bridge could have a nontechnical but
close interaction with human life in a way currently
replaced by the priority of technology.
Based on the understanding of essence of technology
and how it held sway in the process of bridge development,
the key to reconciling the binary oppositions of bridges on
the temporal scale is to redefine the role of technology in a Fig. 5 1st Traversina bridge by Jürg Conzett (Conzett, 2006).

61
 H. Zhou, E. Currà, J. Leng et al.

4.2. Spatial topographic scale d connection and

separation

In nature where no particle of matter can share its space

with anything exclusive of itself, the meaning of connection
comes out in a complementary way contrived by creatures,
especially humanity to reorganize the world. In this sense,
a bridge should be the most manifest achievement of
human ability. This man-made topographic connection
should never be overemphasized in overcoming the obsta-
cles in nature, such as marshlands, rivers, mountains, and
oceans. The primary intention of a bridge to connect could
then be intensified as long as human successfully overcomes
the longer distance and the more complex topography.
Besides surpassing nature in a technical way constructed by
human, as a connection, a bridge is supposed to be a
gathering or assembly of the discrete nature. To illustrate
the nature of dwelling, Heidegger used the bridge as an Fig. 7 Plan Obus for Algiers by Le Corbusier (Ackley, 2006).
example that gathers itself in its own way: saving the earth,
receiving the sky, awaiting the divinities, and initiating
mortals (Heidegger, 1971). This gathered fourfold by a
bridge should be the exact connection of matter and spirit,
including the topography, environment, symbolism, and
humanity pertaining to a bridge.
The connection role of a bridge in the described way of
overcoming and gathering could be highly praised, espe-
cially when it is constructed as a megastructure crossing
vast lands, mountains, and waters or an infrastructure
contributing to the space renewal of communities. How-
ever, this dominant goal to connect is a presupposition of
what it has overcome and gathered, i.e., the separation of
nature. Connecting and separating are two types of activ-
ities that come together in human undertakings, and we are
at any moment those who separate the connected or con-
nect the separate (Simmel, 1994). Besides doing homage to
bridges contributing to an extremely accessible world for
humankind, the manner by which the connection is derived
from the separate and inversely affects it must also be
investigated to inspire more landscape bridge designs.
In considering the correlation of separateness and
connectedness, the German philosopher Georg Simmel
made a detailed analogy between a bridge and a door,
particularly distinguishing their difference in boundary and

Fig. 8 Central Artery (I-93) before Big (DigHöweler and Yoon

Architecture, 2008).

direction issues. As illustrated in his comparative study, the

bridge always allows the accent to fall on connection, while
the door represents in a more decisive manner how sepa-
rating and connecting are only two sides of precisely the
Fig. 6 Great Wall of China (Clapp, 1920). same act (Simmel, 1994). On the basis of his creative

62
 Frontiers of Architectural Research 11 (2022) 53e72
perspectives, three analogies are made herein to further
understand the counterpart of connecting and separating
with respect to a bridge, namely, the analogies with the
road, door, and rampart. To avoid nihility, four sorted
contents belonging to connection and separation will be
addressed as follows, which are based on an elaborate
deconstruction of this binary opposition.
(1) Accessibility-inaccessibility: The road comes out of
the surface of the earth by connecting two places that are
originally separate. This path-building achievement of hu-
mankind reaches its zenith in the construction of a bridge, and
both of them dedicate to an accessible route marked by a
beginning and end. Then, the bridge could be considered as an
extension of the road by overcoming obstacles. When we shift
our focus to a similar route-like rampart, the possible danger
of inaccessibility somehow occurs. Taking the famous rampart
the Great Wall of China for illustration, the primary goal of
this mega-infrastructure is to ward off invaders from the
northern part of China geographically (Fig. 6). The Great Wall
has demonstrated an extreme situation of how the route-like
infrastructures may produce transverse inaccessibility when
we ordinarily focus on the continuous longitudinal accessi-
bility by blocking from the transverse. Employing a method
reminiscent of the one used for Roman aqueducts, the Plan
Obus conceived by Le Corbusier in the 1930s was supposed to
be a modernist megastructure laid directly over the Casbah of
Algiers, with its elevated highway and bridges combined with
dwellings (Fig. 7). If built, an abrupt change in the spatial
arrangement would take place for its brutal scale (Ackley,
2006). Although initially pursuing ideal traffic accessibility,
an imaginable blocking could also be caused by this Utopian
roadtown. For comparison, the door, which concentrates on
both accessibility and inaccessibility, represents in a more
decisive manner how separating and connecting are only two
sides of precisely the same act through opening and closing
(Simmel, 1994).
(2) Unity-discreteness: The Heidegger’s fourfold gath-
ering of the eartheskyemortalsedivinities describes the
most ideal state of unity a bridge could be. On the one
hand, this unity is manifestly embodied in the integration of
the isolated places it connects, such as banks of a river. On
the other hand, the unity could be reflected in the
involvement into a larger unordered system, served as a
positive artificial composition to contribute to a well-
organized one (e.g., the united landscape characterized
by ancient Roman aqueducts and the poetic multipurpose
mega-form in Plan Obus expected to be woven into the city
landscape). Conversely, a distinguished characteristic of
discreteness could be found in the other analogs. Specif-
ically, a road divides what is intact into its bilateral places
where discreteness may subsequently emerge. For a door,
it makes a strict distinction between inside and outside,
which is discreteness-based. And the discreteness on two
sides of a rampart is deliberately intensified by topo-
graphical separation to guarantee self-independence.
Revealingly, possible discreteness may also take place
concerning a bridge. In the case of the Plan Obus, disaster
loomed in the project’s disregard for Algerian social and
religious traditions, the segregation of the workers and the
European communities (Ackley, 2006), and discreteness of
space, culture, and society are simultaneously covered up
by the superficial unity. A practical example to comprehend
63
the discreteness and unity is the High Line Park, which plays
a role in the gentrification of its surrounding neighborhoods
(Millington, 2015). This type of discreteness is especially
mute when the privileged unity speaks. Another type of
discreteness probably originates from the inefficiency of
the unity itself. The famous Boston Big Dig was designed to
stitch back the city that was cleaved apart from the 1950s
by installing an underground network of interstate tunnels
to replace the elevated I-93 highway, which had culminated
into a voluminous complex of unity equivalent to
discreteness (Fig. 8).
(3) Direction-indifference: A bridge, as a line stretched
between two points, prescribes unconditional security and
direction. It makes no difference in meaning in which direc-
tion one crosses a bridge, whereas the door displays a com-
plete difference of intention between entering and exiting
(Simmel, 1994). In Simmel’s comparative thinking, the door
stands where the finitude and infinitude meet, which is in
contrast to the bridge that connects the finite with the finite.
The indifferent treatment to the separated sides that a bridge
connects is an exact reflection of the common neglect of the
differences in the sites awaiting for connection. This phe-
nomenon is particularly noticeable in bridges applying a strict
structural typology characterized with symmetrical forms.
This insensitivity to the directionality along which a line
stretches and the individuality it physically connects is glar-
ingly obvious for roads and ramparts. The beginning and
ending of them are negligible compared with their length
dimension. Inspired by the extreme cases representing the
directionality, bridges with relatively limited length, neces-
sarily require differential treatments to the separate sites
with diverse characteristics to be connected.
(4) Consolidation-fortuitousness: In illustrating how
connection dominates the forming of road, Simmel (1994)
put forward that the will to connect is a shaping of things,
a shaping that was available to the will at every repetition
without still being dependent on its frequency or rarity.
We accomplish a solid structure with its intended function
(i.e., a road and a bridge to carry traffic and a rampart to
defend the territory) only by making it physically lasting.
Once built, this consolidation will serve as a permanent
element planted in nature with its fortuitousness elevated
to a unity. We will get inured to it by using it abidingly and
viewing it as a constitutive element of the environment.
While for a door, it can shift between the feeling of
isolation and connection, which could be achieved and
intensified through its closing and opening. The flexibility
of a door is absent in a bridge, which freezes the move-
ment into a solid structure and integrates itself into the
landscape. Thus, as a solid connection achievement and
permanent landscape element, a bridge deserves special
functional and aesthetic scrutiny.
A concise and conclusive symbolic representation for
illustrating the connection and separation characteristics of
the discussed analogies is shown in Table 2.
4.3. Spatial landscape scale d skyphilia and
topophilia
Following the overall spatial issue concerning connection
and separation, the secondary imperative pertaining to
 H. Zhou, E. Currà, J. Leng et al.
Table 2 Analogies of a bridge for illustration of its connection and separation characteristics.
what we call a landscape bridge should be its relationship
between landscape or how we perceive, view, and experi-
ence a bridge within its landscape background. In the study
of environmental perception, attitudes, and values, the
eminent geographer Yi-Fu Tuan structured the theme of
“topophilia” to describe the affective bond between peo-
ple and place or setting (Tuan, 1974). Topophilia embraces
an intimate relationship with the environment, society, and
culture and finds its gratification in a self-affirmed
aesthetic experience. In making the distinction of the
traditional society and the modern one, Tuan recognized
that primitive and traditional people lived in a vertical,
rotary, and richly symbolical world, whereas a modern
man’s world tends to be broad of surface, low of ceiling,
nonrotary, aesthetic, and profane (Tuan, 1974). Although
Tuan did not go further into the antipodal field of topo-
philia, his differentiated understanding of verticality and
planarity connotates another type of relationship between
people and the environment, which we may conclude as
“skyphilia” as the counterpart of topophilia in this study.
Revealingly, the antitheses of skyphilia and topophilia
may share a similar theory with abstraction and empathy, a
far-reaching theory of plastic art proposed by Wilhelm
Worringer at the beginning of the 20th century, exerting a
significant influence on art, architecture, and landscape.
Whereas the precondition for the urge to empathy is a
happy pantheistic relationship of confidence between man
and the phenomena of the external world, the urge to
abstraction is the outcome of a great inner unrest inspired
in man by the phenomena of the outside world (Worringer,
1997). Recurrent antipodal descriptions were made by
Worringer to distinguish these two artistic volitions, such as
beauty of the organic and beauty of the life-denying inor-
ganic, self-affirmation and self-alienation, and represen-
tation of space and suppression of space, corresponding to
64
the aesthetic experiences of empathy and abstraction,
respectively. As Worringer addressed, the aim of abstrac-
tion was to wrest the object of the external world out of its
natural context, out of the unending flux of being, to purify
it of all its dependence upon life (i.e., of everything about
it that was arbitrary), to render it necessary and irrefra-
gable, to approximate it to its absolute value (Worringer,
1997). This absolute value corresponds to a transcen-
dental tinge to all notions, escaping from our empathetic
world to its inanimate material individuality, close to the
supposed meaning endowed with the new-making word
“skyphilia”.
In a narrow sense, skyphilia is the urge to transcend the
complex of the profane world that man dwells in, to
emerge towards the sky with forms of determination, pu-
rity, and inanimateness, and eventually to achieve its ab-
solute value of material individuality. It is the concrete
reflection of abstraction with its own specialized direc-
tionality. In man-made achievements, skyphilia pursues its
transcendence, in most cases skywards, standing as sym-
bolic high-rise structures. This transcendence of nature
could be found in numerous tall buildings with strong
symbolic images, ranging from the primitive societies to
modern metropolis, such as the Babel Tower, the Egyptian
Pyramids and Obelisks, the Eiffel Tower, the Sagrada
Familia, the Burj Khalifa Tower, and the eminent Golden
Gate Bridge, which herein is used for a comparative study
to represent the cable-stayed and suspension bridges with
tall towers. Despite the height difference of these struc-
tures due to the diverse architectural functions supported
by diverse materials and construction technologies of the
time, they all rise from their rooted landscape ground as a
prominent landmark with symbolic implications. In
analyzing the motivations of these tall buildings, besides
their functional requirements to provide architectural
 Frontiers of Architectural Research 11 (2022) 53e72

Fig. 9 Comparative motivation analysis of high structures.

space or structural support, their fervent urge to symbolism
could be further explored to involve both a materialistic
and empathetic consideration. As the comparative study
illustrated in Fig. 9, in the functional aspect, the skyscraper
Burj Khalifa Tower and the long-span Golden Gate Bridge
stand as the most effective structures necessary for their
functional goals. By contrast, the obelisks and the Eiffel
Tower were constructed without any functional expecta-
tions. Instead, the grandiose edifices were born with a
specific aim for symbolism, being monuments of religious
belief and social development, respectively. The difference
is that the Eiffel Tower was endowed with more symbolic
implications of material individuality built of wrought iron
to stand as the tallest building of the time, while a more
empathetic symbolism of religion was expected for the
obelisks in all ages incessantly. By contrast, the motivations
to build the Babel Tower, the Egyptian Pyramid, and the
Sagrada Familia are more balanced in relation to their
functional requirement, the symbolic will to skyphilia and
the empathetic representation.
The urge to abstraction stands at the beginning of every
art, and in the case of certain peoples at a high level of
culture remains the dominant tendency (Worringer, 1997).
The similar artistic volition of skyphilia is also proven to be
dominant when conceiving a landscape bridge. We are
automatically inclined to preconceive a picturesque land-
scape with the visually symbolic bridge settled in as long as
its aesthetic aspects are considered. A vertical, egocentric,
and richly symbolical bridge is universally preferred by
engineers to present the structural art, or by architects as
an effective medium to transcend and activate the original
site that may be barren, inanimate, or undeveloped. Many
bridge works of Calatrava are typical illustrations of how
skyphilia acts as an invisible power to contribute to their
success. For example, the Alamillo Bridge (Fig. 10) is the
application and scale-up of his sculpture work of Musical
Star to a civil engineering structure (Guest et al., 2013).
Calatrava has promoted the concept of abstraction to its
absolute value with grandiose dimension by enlarging the
scale of the abstract sculpture, thus making an extremely
positive impact on the landscape improvement for the 1992
Universal Exposition hosted on La Cartuja. Driven by the
urge of skyphilia, the significance of the Alamillo Bridge to
La Cartuja resembles that of the Golden Gate Bridge to the
San Francisco Bay, the pyramid to Sahara, and the Eiffel
Tower to Paris.
Although the artistic volition of Skyphilia of a landscape
bridge is to transcend nature, in the end, it fits into the

Fig. 10 Skyphilia: sculpture into bridge by Santiago Calatrava. (a) Sculpture Musical Star 1 (Mark, 2014); (b) Alamillo Bridge.
Source: Photo Credit belongs to Wikiarquitectura

65
 H. Zhou, E. Currà, J. Leng et al.

image of nature as a landscape element. A bridge gains its

spiritual expectation of Skyphilia only by means of its im-
mediate spatial visibility. When delineating the man’s
perceptual equipment as a biological organism, Yi-Fu Tuan
pointed out that responding to the world through sight
differs from responding to it through the other senses; the
world perceived through the eyes is more abstract than
that known to us through the other senses, and we have the
tendency to regard seen objects as “distant” d as not
calling forth any strong emotional response d even though
they may in point of fact be close to us (Tuan, 1974).
Whereas skyphilia is a more vision-based tendency to
transcend nature, topophilia is empathetically rooted in
the world we perceive with biological senses of vision,
touch, hearing, and smell, and it is the same world we live
in with environmental, cultural, and individual differences.
In this meaning, a bridge should not only be built to be seen
but also to be experienced by crossing, lingering, recreat-
ing, and resting. Unlike the topographical transcendence of
skyphilia, the topophilia of a bridge embraces the world
pragmatically.
Topography, or geography, including the land features of
a place, its environment, and inhabitants, necessarily pro-
vides the content of topophilic sentiment, and together
with our human perceptual system, they constitute the key
elements of Tuan’s topophilia (i.e., the perception, atti-
tudes, and values). The Fort Vancouver land bridge
(Fig. 11), an antipodal example of skyphilia, appropriately
illustrates how topophilia interacts with the world in a
positive way to be close to it. Spanning American State
Route 14, the Land Bridge was built to restore the ancient
crossroads of the Klickitat Trail and the Columbia River. An
interpretive trail with educational components is specially Fig. 11 Topophilia: Fort Vancouver land bridge (Land8:
planned to invite multiple levels of rich historical, cultural, Landscape Architects Network, 2014).
and environmental interpretation in this project, including
indigenous geography, history, language, and plants. The
bridge path appears as a natural extension of the existing the approachable plane on which man lives. With a shift
landscape, and all patterns, shapes, and artworks become from topophilia to skyphilia, the bridge gives access to the
an open book of the site’s history; it brings together all the Albornoz Castle on a particular height, which is located on
elements into one masterpiece, being an emblematic icon the top of the Sant’Elia hill and from where you can enjoy a
for the Confluence Project and the city (Land8: Landscape splendid panoramic view over Monteluco. Thus, the tran-
Architects Network, 2014). scendental traits of the castle and the bridge are mutually
The transcendent skyphilia and the immersive topophilia intensified, making them the two most important
are not contradictive oppositions, except their distinctive emblematic symbols of Spoleto, characterized by a medi-
features. Before skyphilia has realized its ideal enclosed- ated emotion of skyphilia and topophilia.
ness, it must have considered for a moment how to distance
itself from the bewildering ground when taking root in it. A
spatial, historical, and spiritual extension of the orches-
trated world is also expected by topophilia to gain satis-
faction beyond the empathetic fulfillment of the living
world. A harmonious combination of skyphilia and topo-
philia could find its exact representation in the form of the
ancient Roman aqueducts crossing the valleys. The bridge
of the towers (Ponte delle Torri), a Roman-Lombard aque-
duct in Spoleto of Italy, is an imposing bridge that unites
the Sant’Elia hill (the highest point of the city of Spoleto) to
Monteluco at a unique height (Fig. 12). With 236 m long and
approximately 80 m high, the bridge presents both a ver-
tical and longitudinal dimension corresponding to its
grounded topography. Nine pillars linked by pointed arches
rise from the valley between the two hills, while the first Fig. 12 Skyphilia and Topophilia: Ponte delle Torri. Source:
two tallest are based on a previous building site alluding to Google Maps, Photo Credit belongs to Marco Corbella.

66
 Frontiers of Architectural Research 11 (2022) 53e72
4.4. Spatial architectural scale d extroversion and
introversion
According to Merriam-Webster Dictionary, extraversion
(also spelled as extroversion) is the state of primarily
obtaining gratification from outside oneself, while intro-
version is the state of being predominantly interested in
one’s own mental self. The theory of extroversion and
introversion was preliminarily popularized by Carl Jung, an
influential thinker and the founder of Analytical Psychol-
ogy, to distinguish the central dimension of human per-
sonality (Jung, 1921). Jung (1995) defined extroversion as
“an attitude-type characterized by concentration of inter-
est on the external object”, and introversion as “an
attitude-type characterized by orientation in life through
subjective psychic contents”.
The extroversion-introversion of architecture has long
been one of the most refreshing issues of modernity
because architecture ordinarily presents distinctions be-
tween the interior and the exterior. Among them is the
prevailing dictum “form follows function” proposed by Luis
Sullivan, which has testified to a wide-ranging influence on
the modern architecture of the 20th century. In the post-
modern period, two realms of inquiry are distinguished in
regard of the question of what constitutes a proper archi-
tecture. The first realm tended toward the horizon of
interpretation and design by a “scientific view” of getting
to know nature. This realm is also considered
environmental-extroverted, looking for the truths that lie
outside the body of architecture. The second realm
emphasized architectural discourse toward the world of
architectural objects advocating a kind of autonomous-
introverted architecture, which is characterized by a ten-
dency to adhere to the rhetorical domain of architectural
objects as for organizing compositional principles
(Xhambazi, 2015).
The widespread discourse of the diametrical opposition
of architecture’s extroversion and introversion is highly
associated with space theories, including boundary issues.
In spite of the subsequent theories to blur and mediate the
interior and exterior through form and boundary strategies,
architecture generally occurs at the meeting of the interior
and exterior, where space is born in the form of concrete
boundaries, such as walls to define the limits. While for the
modern bridge, despite its early contribution to the advent
of architectural modernism, it has been excluded from the
mainstream of the space theories in conjunction with
boundary consideration. The extroversioneintroversion di-
chotomy is seldom mentioned to address the architectural
aspect of a bridge when two extreme situations normally
take place. On the one hand, a bridge is considered as an
open space with indeterminate boundaries. On the other
hand, it is treated as a building crossing a particular site
characterized by typical architectural enclosedness. Before
we could distinguish between the extroversion and the
introversion of a bridge, the construction of a spatial hi-
erarchy borrowing space and boundary theories from ar-
chitecture is indispensable to offer the basis for both an
extrovert and introvert architectural strategy for a bridge.
Thus, the three space levels defined herein are as follows:
67
(1) Box: the first space level defined by the main body of
a bridge, physically corresponding to its functional and
perceptible space created inside or on the constituent
architectural components. With regard to bridges with
typical enclosing components similar to that of architec-
ture, the “box” is roughly equivalent to its geometric
figure, such as cube, cylinder, pyramid, and prism, whose
interior and exterior of the main body could be easily
grasped. In terms of bridges with no determinate enclosing
geometrical space, namely, those with complex geometries
and characterized by open space, the “box” could be
deemed as the minimum space to encompass all the func-
tional space, including architecture, traffic, and recrea-
tion. A visualized way to comprehend the “box” without
noticeable enclosing space could refer to the environ-
mental artwork “The Pont Neuf Wrapped” by artists Christo
and Jeanne-Claude. Through wrapping the bridge body with
fabric in a way analogous to clothing, this work reminds us
of the boundary between the supposedly intrinsic self or
body it surrounds and the outside world (Salinger, 2007).
Thus, the “box” space could be imagined by dressing the
architectural body of a bridge. It is a simplified manifes-
tation of bridge space regardless of its original complexity
of geometry.
(2) Boundary: the second space level to describe a
bridge within its site scale, mainly focusing on the rela-
tionship between the geometric appearance and the site
around it. “Boundary” is about how we define, limit, and
create a portion of land distinct from the rest of the uni-
verse and to assign a particular role to it in consideration of
its effect as a constituent landscape element in a broader
nature space. Unlike the common boundary concept of
architecture that exactly defines the interior and exterior
of the main body, the “boundary” of a bridge serves as a
dual role in a more flexible way when it has to negotiate
with the geometric appearance of the main body and
involve itself into the site at the same time. Not restricted
to the absolute geometry of a bridge, boundary implies a
more fluid logic of connectivity derived from the main body
(i.e., the previously illustrated “Box”). In searching for the
possible forms of the blur boundary, the “box” could be
considered a “blob”, which has an organic form that is soft
and free-flowing. However, it does not mean that the “Box”
should be turned into a physical form of “Blobitecture”. In
many cases, the liquidity of the boundary associated with
the “Box” is more ideological and implicit, creating
impalpable but subsistent transitions to involve itself into
the broader space imperceptibly.
(3) Territory: the third space level to observe the widest
affected space owing to a bridge’s existence. According to
the definition contributed by the French philosopher Gilles
Deleuze, “Territory” evades easy categorization because
the territory itself is a malleable site of passage rather than
being a sedentary place maintaining firm borders against
outside threat (Parr, 2010). As an assistant illustration,
Deleuze introduces his important notion of “assemblage”
that “swings between territorial closure that tends to
restratify them and a deterritorialising movement that on
the contrary connects them with the cosmos” (Parr, 2010).
The territory of a bridge is an assemblage of all the
 H. Zhou, E. Currà, J. Leng et al.
architectural elements and their relevant surroundings in
an organized way (territorialize). The bridge stands as one
of the constituent and influential landscape elements
within its territory, whether it is centralized or decentral-
ized, dominant or accompanied. Meanwhile, the territory
of a bridge is entitled to a dynamic border (deterritorialize)
to evaluate the bridge for different purposes. At particular
times and from various perspectives, the border builds not
only the architectural connections with the outside nature
but also the non-architectural ones, such as the social,
cultural, and economic aspects, which may indirectly in-
fluence the architectural space representation. The terri-
tory of a bridge manifests a series of heterogeneous
elements, including its architecturally affected space and
the other constantly changing circumstances.
The distinguished three space levels pertaining to a
landscape bridge are illustrated on the left of Fig. 13. On
the right portion of the figure is the diagram comprised of
both an extroversion-based and an introversion-based
design process, constructed layer-by-layer on the three
space levels. The process starting from In-1 to In-5 dem-
onstrates how the constituent architectural elements of a
bridge could emerge as a landscape element that seam-
lessly fits into nature when following an introversion-based
trail. Meanwhile, the extroversion-based trail starting from
Ex-1 to Ex-5 adopts a reverse strategy prioritizing a bridge’s
figure in its surroundings. The specific approaches imple-
mented between the constructed space levels could be
further elaborated as follows, corresponding to the two
opposite processes.
An extroversion-based design strategy is generally
adopted to dedicate to a picturesque landscape when
conceiving an exotic landscape bridge within it. Focusing
more on the environment that a bridge will settle into, the
extrovert strategy seeks to gain gratification based on a
presupposed and well-bedded understanding of the envi-
ronment lying outside the main body of the bridge. The
practical steps may include the following: (1) territorialize
the field out of nature; (2) qualify the boundary within the
Fig. 13 Extroversioneintroversion of a bridge. (a) spatial hierarchical analysis of a bridge; (b) crystallization of the spatial hi-
erarchy in conjunction with the two inverse design procedures of extroversion and introversion.
68
territory; (3) embody the box associated with the bound-
ary; and (4) materialize the box with its constituent
architectural components (Fig. 13). An appropriate envi-
ronmentally extroverted demonstration is the Lucky Knot
Bridge (Fig. 14) in Changsha, China. The bridge is set to be a
landmark attraction over the Dragon King Harbour River in
the rapidly developing “New Lake District” of Changsha
(territorialize). Moreover, the bridge is supposed to connect
multiple levels at different heights, including river banks,
roads, higher-placed parks, and interconnections (qualify).
On the left of Fig. 14, inspired by the Mobius ring and the
Chinese knot symbolizing luck and prosperity, the Knot
Bridge with eye-catching form and color rises as an envi-
ronmentally predominant landscape element, which is
comprised of three red undulating, intertwined steel
walkways (embody) by explicitly engaging itself with the
local context. Furthermore, the steps, platforms, and in-
tersections are well organized within the rings to offer the
recreational space for tourists and passers-by attracted by
this environmental-extroverted landmark (materialize).
By contrast, an introversion-based design strategy
greatly emphasizes the architectural components and how
they contribute to a well-organized space inside/on the
bridge, with considerations that normally stop at its geo-
metric appearance in the environment. The applicable
steps may include the following: (1) spatialize the bridge by
using its constituent architectural elements; (2) blur the
boundary that surrounds the spatialized box; (3) involve the
boundary into a territory; and (4) deterritorialize the ter-
ritory into nature. As a comparison, the Qingpu Pedestrian
Bridge in Shanghai (Fig. 15) adopts an entirely different
design procedure to deal with the issue of extro-
versioneintroversion. In Fig. 15(a), the bridge is initially
conceived to provide for a dedicated truss on the river of-
fering changing perspectives along the bent pass inspired by
the winding gallery of the traditional Chinese garden
(spatialize) while responding to the different access con-
ditions at the two banks (blur). The bridge visually adapts
itself to the surroundings (involve) by adjusting its
 Frontiers of Architectural Research 11 (2022) 53e72

Fig. 14 Extroversion-based process: Knot Bridge at Chengdu, China. (a) Bridge conceived as a landscape element. (b) embodied
form of the bridge; (c) materialized space on the bridge. Source: Archdaily, Photo Credit belongs to NEXT architects and Julien
Lanoo.

Fig. 15 Introversion-based process: Qingpu Pedestrian Bridge at Shanghai, China. (a) Formation of the main body and its
boundary on the basis of an introverted deduction (Alba, 2009); (b) constituent elements of the truss shaping the box of the bridge;
(c) geometrical appearance involved in the environment. Source of (b)&(c): Archdaily, Photo Credit belongs to CA-DESIGN and
Nacasa & Partners.

elevation and roof and serves as a central public space for
the connected communities (deterritorialize).
When we talk about human personality, extroversion
tends to be manifested in outgoing, talkative, energetic
behavior, whereas introversion is manifested in a more
reserved and solitary behavior. The trait differences are
somehow equivalent to the extroversion and introversion of
a bridge, corresponding to a heteronomous and autonomous
presentation, respectively. Whereas extroversion is always
appreciated for its consideration about the external world,
ambiversion is moderately integrated and exhibits qualities
of both introversion and extroversion. The corpus of
awareness, knowledge, strategy, and practice appears
intertwined within both the realms, namely, introversion

69
 H. Zhou, E. Currà, J. Leng et al.
and extroversion, although connecting the defined space
levels in opposite ways. A landscape bridge that compre-
hensively addresses its architectural aspects is more like an
ambivert considering autonomy and environment, regard-
less the type of procedures it adopts (either extroversion-
or extroversion-based).
5. Multi-scale integration: a pyramid model
The extensive investigation of the multiple
temporalespatial scales of a bridge based on the decon-
struction theory builds a hierarchical system comprised of
the discovered oppositions, namely, development and
retrogression, connection and separation, skyphilia and
topophilia, extroversion and introversion. By thoroughly
addressing their dominant and subordinate sides, the dual
oppositions reestablish themselves through giving sufficient
attention to the ordinarily overlooked aspects and calling
for a new relationship between the oppositions, namely, a
peaceful coexistence or a complete reversal. Within the
deconstructed scales, a landscape bridge could draw its
design inspiration from either pole of the oppositions or an
appropriate combination. In addition, the constructed
multiple scales are not physically isolated in their respec-
tive autonomies; on the contrary, they are highly associ-
ated in the cross-scale mechanism in which every scale
releases its boundary and actively interacts with the
adjoining scales.
As shown in Fig. 16, a pyramid-form model is founded by
integrating the discovered multiple scales and oppositions
of a landscape bridge. The stabilized triangle emerges as a
prototype that not only explains how the current scales
constitute this primitive framework, but also provides in-
terfaces for the other scales to be further discovered or
developed. Revealingly, the scale closer to the foundation
of the pyramid is also prioritized to define a landscape
bridge, i.e., from a dominant expression, a bridge could be
a connection, a picturesque landscape element, and a well-
shaped architecture in a sequence. The latter developed
scales with growing vitality are generally closer to the top
of the pyramid, which is elevated by the development of
bridges and contributing to the enrichment of the pyramid
ceaselessly. Neither part of the binary oppositions in the
pyramid model could exist without the interaction force
Fig. 16 Pyramid model of landscape bridges based on a
multi-scale integration.
70
from the other parts. The multiple scales are actually
interdependent regardless of our general neglect of the
foundation and the opposite side of the pyramid. Specif-
ically, the pyramid model may inspire various design stra-
tegies by combining of deconstructed components taken
from different scales (e.g., a landscape bridge could be
appropriate coordination of skyphilia, topophilia, and
extroversion, considering the retrogressive aspects at the
meanwhile). The deconstructed multiple scales are inter-
woven into a new hierarchy while reestablishing themselves
and consolidating the pyramid model.
6. Conclusion
In view of the scarcity of design theories for contemporary
landscape bridges, this research mainly aims to investigate
landscape bridges on the basis of their multiple
temporalespatial scales, namely, (1) temporal scale, (2)
spatial topographic scale, (3) spatial landscape scale, and
(4) spatial architectural scale. Unlike the previous bridge
design theories focusing on pure structural, architectural,
and landscape aspects or calling for interdisciplinary
cooperation, our work provides a broad framework to help
the individual reader in placing his or her interests and note
how they are related to the specific themes of landscape
bridges. This work is devoted to the common theory that
inspires both bridge engineers and architects.
Following an elaborate investigation in the introduction
part addressing the research and design status of landscape
bridges, a multifaceted framework is proposed to cover the
most central issues with respect to a landscape bridge. The
new multi-scale framework is instrumental in understand-
ing landscape bridges in a comprehensive and open-minded
view. The dominant and opposite counterparts are thor-
oughly addressed with their consistency strategies dis-
cussed by observing the four scales based on Derrida’s
deconstruction theory. The main conclusions are as follows:
(1) Development and retrogression: On the temporal
scale, the span capacity and current situations of the four
main modern bridge types were clearly illustrated by the
investigation of the span development and a periodization
analysis. The results showed that we are following a gradual
development route in the new century when digesting
technological achievements and make non-structure-driven
innovations on the previously founded technological
strength. The positions of development and retrogression of
bridges were reinterpreted on the basis of Heidegger’s
theory of “enframing” concerning technology. The tech-
nology should always cooperate, contribute, and even
make a sacrifice instead of dominating when juxtaposed
with other aspects of a bridge.
(2) Connection and separation: On the spatial topo-
graphic scale, we used three analogs, namely, road, door,
and rampart, to help to understand the connotation of
connection and separation on the basis of Georg Simmel’s
comparison between bridge and door. The specifically
addressed issues included accessibility and inaccessibility,
unity and discreteness, direction and indifference, consol-
idation and fortuitousness. We confirmed that except doing
mere homage to the connecting role of a bridge, the sep-
aration also happens in many ways, which should be
 Frontiers of Architectural Research 11 (2022) 53e72
carefully avoided and could be appropriately utilized to
inspire the connection.
(3) Skyphilia and topophilia: On the spatial landscape
scale, the antipod of Tuan’s topophilia was proposed as
skyphilia to introduce the two common landscape patterns
of bridges. We distinguished the characteristics of the
transcendent skyphilia and the immersive topophilia
through a theory discussion similar to that of Worringer’s
abstraction and empathy. Both concepts are indispensable
in the landscape scale and could unite as one composite
landscape mode in many cases.
(4) Extroversion and introversion: On the spatial
architectural scale, three spatial levels were defined as
box, boundary, and territory to orientate the way we
conceive the architectural aspects of a bridge, namely, the
environmental-extroverted and the autonomous-
introverted strategies characterized by different imple-
mentation procedures, which may refer to different em-
phases but could also be mediated as an ambiversion in
practice.
A pyramid model was proposed to integrate the multiple
scales. On this basis, we can clearly find that the multi-
faceted scales are interdependent with each other, while
their dominant and opposite sides are exactly positioned.
Various design traits could be acquired from this currently
overwhelming framework, manifesting a fluid logic of
connectivity.
This research is supposed to lead to a series of studies
based on multiple scales to be continued. We hope that this
work could conceptually inspire bridge designers with dis-
similar backgrounds, and peers in this field could derive
more stimulus from it.
Funding
This work was supported by the Postgraduate Research &
Practice Innovation Program of Jiangsu Province, China
(KYCX18_0162).
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing
financial interests or personal relationships that could have
appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
References
Ackley, B., 2006. Blocking the casbah: Le Corbusier’s Algerian
fantasy. Available online at: https://www.bidoun.org/articles/
le-corbusier-s-algerian-fantasy. (Accessed 15 April 2021).
Alba, P.P.A., 2009. More than a bridge: Shanghai Qingpu footbridge
design. Archit. Technol. Des. 2009, 82e87 (02) (in Chinese).
Architects, F., Feichtinger, D., 2008. Simone de Beauvoir foot-
bridge, Paris, France, 2006. World Architect. 2008 (1), 38e43 (in
Chinese).
Baker, B., 1884. The Forth Bridge. Bedford Press, London.
Beade-Pereda, H., McElhinney, J., Barbulescu, B., 2019. St. Philips
footbridge in Bristol: a holistic design as a driver for urban
regeneration. Bautechnik 96 (2), 133e141.
Beck, H., Cooper, J., 2012. Kurilpa Bridge. Images Publishing,
Melbourne.
71
Becker, A., Lampe, S., Negussie, L., Schmal, P.C. (Eds.), 2018. Ride
a Bike!: Reclaim the City. Birkhäuser, Basel.
Bellini, O.E., Bellini, O.B., Daglio, L., 2008. New Frontiers in Ar-
chitecture: Dubai between Vision and Reality. White Star Pub-
lishers, Novara.
Billington, D.P., 1985. The Tower and the Bridge: the New Art of
Structural Engineering. Princeton University Press, Princeton.
Billington, D.P., 1989. Robert Maillart’s Bridges: the Art of Engi-
neering. Princeton University Press, Princeton.
Billington, D.P., Gottemoeller, F., 2000. Bridge aestheticsdstruc-
tural art. In: Chen, W.F., Duan, L. (Eds.), Bridge Engineering
Handbook. CRC Press, Boca Raton.
Brumer, M., Rothman, H., Fiegen, M., Forsyth, B., 1966. Verrazano-
narrow bridge: design of superstructure. J. Construct. Div. 92
(2), 23e70.
Castañón, C., Serrano, A., Calzon, J.M., 2014. Arganzuela Helix
footbridge. Struct. eng. Int. 24 (1), 92e95.
Clapp, F.G., 1920. Along and across the Great Wall of China. Geogr.
Rev. 9 (4), 221e249.
Conzett, J., Mostafavi, M., 2006. Structure as Space: Engineering
and Architecture in the Works of Jürg Conzett. Architectural
Association, London.
Cossons, N., Trinder, B.S., 2002. The Iron Bridge: Symbol of the
Industrial Revolution. Phillimore & Co Ltd, West Sussex.
Dallard, P., Fitzpatrick, A.J., Flint, A., Le Bourva, S., Low, A.,
Ridsdill Smith, R.M., Willford, M., 2001. The London millennium
footbridge. Struct. Eng. 79 (22), 17e21.
Derrida, J., 1972. Positions. Nouvelles Editions Latines. Paris.
Derrida, J., 2016. Of Grammatology. JHU Press, Baltimore.
DigHöweler and Yoon Architecture, 2008. Public Works: Unsolicited
Small Projects for the Big Dig. Available online at: http://www.
howeleryoon.com/research/1254/public-works-unsolicited-
small- projects-for-the-big-dig. (Accessed 15 April 2021).
Fisher, D., 1982. Design and construction of the Humber Bridge.
Phys. Educ. 17 (5), 198.
Frick, K.T., 2015. Remaking the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge:
A Case of Shadowboxing with Nature. Routledge, Abingdon.
Gottemoeller, F., 1998. Bridgescape: the Art of Designing Bridges.
John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken.
Guest, J.K., Draper, P., Billington, D.P., 2013. Santiago Calatrava’s
Alamillo bridge and the idea of the structural engineer as artist.
J. Bridge Eng. 18 (10), 936e945.
Guillemette, L., Cossette, J., 2006. Deconstruction and Difference.
Available online at: http://www.signosemio.com/derrida/
deconstruction-and-differance.asp. (Accessed 15 April 2021).
Heidegger, M., 1954. The question concerning technology. In:
Hanks, C. (Ed.), Technology and Values: Essential Readings.
John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, pp. 99e113.
Heidegger, M., 1971. Building dwelling thinking. In: Poetry, Lan-
guage Thought, vol. 154, pp. 1e26.
Hermaputi, R.L., Hua, C., 2017. Creating urban water resilience:
review of China’s development strategies “sponge city” concept
and practices. Indones. J. Plan. Dev. 2 (1), 1e10.
Ito, M., Endo, T., 1994. The Tatara bridge-world’s longest cable-
stayed span. In: Structures Congress XII, Atlanta, pp. 677e682.
Iyengar, H., Rockey, C., Sinn, R., Zils, J., 2006. Millennium park BP
pedestrian crossing, Chicago, USA. Struct. Eng. 84 (13), 33e37.
Jodidio, P., 2019. Calatrava: Complete Works 1979-Today. Taschen,
Köln.
Jung, C.G., 1921. Psychologische Typen. Rascher Verlag, Zurich.
Jung, C.G., 1995. Memories, Dreams, Reflections. Fontana Press,
London.
Khoroshev, A.V., Dyakonov, K.N., 2020. Landscape Patterns in a
Range of Spatio-Temporal Scales. Springer.
Knight, M., 2014. The design of the merchant Square footbridge,
London. In: Footbridge 2014dPast, Present & Future, London.
Kouwenhoven, J.A., 1982. The designing of the Eads bridge.
Technol. Cult. 23 (4), 535e568.
 H. Zhou, E. Currà, J. Leng et al.
Land8: Landscape Architects Network, 2014. Land Bridge Is an
Ecological Masterpiece. Available online at: https://land8.
com/land-bridge-is-an-ecological-masterpiece/. (Accessed 15
April 2021).
Leonhardt, F., 1968. Aesthetics of bridge design. PCI J. 13 (1),
14e31.
Leonhardt, F., 1984. Bridges: Aesthetics and Design. The MIT Press,
Cambridge.
MacDonald, D., Nadel, I., 2013. Golden Gate Bridge: History and
Design of an Icon. Chronicle Books, San Francisco.
Mark, R., 2014. Santiago Calatrava: Sculpture into Architecture.
Available online at: https://the189.com/sculpture/santiago-
calatrava-sculpture-into-architecture/. (Accessed 15 April 2021).
Matsumoto, H., Yasuda, M., 1990. Design and construction of the
Akashi Kaikyo bridge. Civ. Eng. Jpn 29, 45e60.
McCullough, D., 2012. The Great Bridge: the Epic Story of the
Building of the Brooklyn Bridge. Simon & Schuster, New York.
Millington, N., 2015. From urban scar to “park in the sky”: terrain
vague, urban design, and the remaking of New York City’s High
Line Park. Environ. Plan. A 47 (11), 2324e2338.
Mock, E.B., Kassler, E.B., 1950. The Architecture of Bridges.
Museum of Modern Art, New York.
Monclús, F.J., 2009. International Exhibitions and Urbanism: the
Zaragoza Expo 2008 Project. Ashgate Publishing Ltd, Aldershot.
Morgen, K., Lüdders, J., 2017. Die butterfly bridge in Kopenhagen.
Stahlbau 86 (1), 78e83.
National Research Council (US). Transportation Research Board,
1991. Bridge Aesthetics Around the World. Transportation
Research Board.
Office of Bridges and Structures, 1995. Aesthetic Guidelines for
Bridge Design. Minnesota Department of Transportation.
Olson, D.W., Wolf, S.F., Hook, J.M., 2015. The tacoma narrows
bridge collapse. Phys. Today 68 (11), 64e65.
Özçakı, M., 2017. Creating living urban spaces. Humanitas-uluslar.
Sos. Bilimler Dergisi 5 (10), 205e228.
Palladio, A., 2002. The Four Books on Architecture. The MIT Press,
Cambridge.
Parr, A. (Ed.), 2010. Deleuze Dictionary Revised Edition. Edinburgh
University Press, Edinburgh.
Paxton, R.A., 1977. Menai Bridge (1818e1826) and its influence on
suspension bridge development. Trans. N.com. Soc. 49 (1),
87e110.
Pipinato, A., 2015. The history, aesthetics, and design of bridges.
In: Pipinato, A. (Ed.), Innovative Bridge Design Handbook:
Construction, Rehabilitation and Maintenance. Butterworth-
Heinemann, Oxford, pp. 3e17.
Pipinato, A., 2016. Case study: the Russky bridge. In: Pipinato, A.
(Ed.), Innovative Bridge Design Handbook: Construction, Reha-
bilitation and Maintenance. Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford,
pp. 671e680.
Rockland, M.A., 2020. The George Washington Bridge: Poetry in
Steel. Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick.
72
Rossiter, J., 2008. A critical analysis of the Ganter bridge,
Switzerland (1980). In: Proceedings of the Annual Bridge Engi-
neering 2 Conference, Bath, pp. 81e90.
Salinger, V., 2007. The Pont Neuf Wrapped: Framing the Bridge,
Bridging the Frame (Doctoral dissertation).
Shannon, K., Smets, M., 2010. The Landscape of Contemporary
Infrastructure. NAi Publishers, Rotterdam.
Shushkewich, K., Engineers, K.B., 2013. The story of eugene
Freyssinet. Concr. Int. 35 (10), 47e52.
Simmel, G., 1994. Bridge and door. Theor. Cult. Soc. 11 (1), 5e10.
Simondon, G., 2012. On techno-aesthetics. Parrhesia 14 (1), 1e8.
Spallone, R., 2017. In the space and in the time. Representing
architectural ideas by digital animation. In: Proceedings of the
International and Interdisciplinary Conference IMMAGINI?,
Brixen.
Sweetman, B., 1997. The deconstruction of western metaphysics:
Derrida and Maritain on identity. Postmodernism Christ. Philos.
1997, 230e247.
Thrall, A.P., Billington, D.P., 2008. Bayonne bridge: the work of
othmar ammann, master builder. J. Bridge Eng. 13 (6), 635e643.
Ting, E.S., Murugamoorthy, E.C., Prasad, E.D.R., Rathnam, J.,
2014. Review of footbridges in Singapore. In: Footbridges
2014dPast, Present & Future, London.
Tuan, Y.F., 1974. A Study of Environmental Perception, Attitudes,
and Values. Columbia University Press, New York.
Tveit, P., 2008. The Network Arch. Available online at: https://
home.uia.no/pert/index.php/Home. (Accessed 15 April 2021).
Villa, F., 2001. Integrating modelling architecture: a declarative
framework for multi-paradigm, multi-scale ecological model-
ling. Ecol. Model. 137 (1), 23e42.
Waldheim, C., 2016. Landscape as Urbanism: A General Theory.
Princeton University Press, Princeton.
Walther, R., 1996. Engineers, architects and bridge design. Struct.
Eng. Int. 6 (2), 77e79.
Watanabe, Y., 2002. Miho Museum bridge, shigaraki, Japan. Struct.
Eng. Int. 12 (4), 245e247.
Worringer, W., 1997. Abstraction and Empathy: A Contribution to
the Psychology of Style. Ivan R. Dee., Chicago.
Xhambazi, A., 2015. Thinking architecture through the traits of
extroversion and introversion: territory as a question of envi-
ronmental orientation and autonomy. New ArchdInt. J. Con-
temp. Archit. 2 (3), 11e24.
Xiang, Z., Xu, W., Wang, C., Dong, Y., 2010. The construction
technology of Chongqing Chaotianmen bridge. In: Proceedings
of ARCH’10-the 6th International Conference on Arch Bridges,
Fuzhou, pp. 803e811.
Yu, K., Yu, H., Sing, Y., 2018. Restoring the mother river back to the
city: puyangjiang river Corridor in Jinhua. Landscape Architect.
Front. 6 (1), 64e76.
Zhou, H., Leng, J., Zhou, M., Chun, Q., Hassanein, M.F., Zhong, W.,
2018. China’s unique woven timber arch bridges. In: Proc. of the
Inst. of Civ. Eng.dCiv. Eng., vol. 171, pp. 115e120 (3).